|
GOOD NEWS!!!!!! (Heavy Air)
We made it through the storm just fine, it was a long night as I thought it
would be! The phone died shortly after midnight that night when the water was over the dock a couple feet. It was a pretty comfortable ride all in all. I adjusted lines again at 2 am and actually slept until 3:30! I let out about a foot of line on the lee side and slept until 7 am! When I got up there were a few folks standing on their decks geezing at the water, it looked like a huge raft-up with no visible pilings. We had about 5' of water over the dock, the picnick table vanished and my half barrel garden moved about 3' after it was submerged. For those of you who know Annapolis: McNasby's has huge holes in two brick/cinderblock walls, the roof was torn off Jabin's building, the Chart House (old Trumpy finishing sheds) lifted off the pilings and came back down wierd so they may be toast. City Dock is a disaster, most of the restaurants and businesses were flooded. Fawcetts is trashed and I heard there were kids jumping off it's roof into Ego Alley Friday. There were sunk boats, boats up on shore, and blocked boats that fell over, blown out windows, knocked down trees, and lots of water! I helped clear out the water at Muller's where he had about 4" inside. The dog loved playing in the surf in the boatyard Friday and I had fun helping retrieve the dumpster which had floated up the street! There were huge log jams in the streets so driving has been a challenge. The Natl. Guard was here and things are quickly getting back to normal. Seahag, glad that's over! Scott Vernon wrote: Got word that my boat made it through the storm just fine. What a relief!!!! still can't get down to her, as the road into the marina is closed, police barricades et al. Scotty, a happy camper once again. "Thom Stewart" wrote: Scotty, It is that Surge that has me worred, on here in the NW. I remember those Surges when I lived back East. Those shallow bbodies of water would lift boats above those pilings that they were moored to and as the water went out, the boat would be impailed by the pilings as they settled. Hope this isn't the case with our group. OT |
GOOD NEWS!!!!!! another fearless prediction
"Seahag" scribbled Seahag, glad that's over! I don't think you're out of the woods yet. I predict your area will be hit by a second, even stronger storm before the season is over. Glad you came through the first one OK. S.Simon - rarely wrong. |
Heavy Air
"Bobsprit" wrote in message ... because you ASKED what it meant! No. I didn't. Yup, you did. Prove it! Regards Donal -- |
Heavy Air
If you were going to take the time to look it up, you could have at least said how it is
defined. "Donal" wrote in message ... "Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message ... How old is that chart? All of my US charts from the recent past use MLLW as the datum for soundings. I even checked in my Chesapeake ChartKit to see if they were different. OK - Here's a quiz: What's the meaning of LLWLT? Lower Low Water Large Tide. Sounds similiar to LAT. Regards Donal -- |
GOOD NEWS!!!!!! another fearless prediction
wrote in message ... This is the same "weather expert" who thinks that there is no such thing as fog so thick that you can't see the bow of your boat. If Simon says you are about to be hit by a hurricane, you can relax - you're as safe as safe can be. He's always off by 500 to 1000 miles. The thickest fog ever measured exists within your thick skull. X-rays failed to penetrate it. You know nothing about sea fog and you never will because you're too afraid to sail your flimsy Crap&Crap 27 anywhere but in very sheltered waters. Even Bobsprit is a better sailor than you and he rarely sails. S.Simon - the one and only |
GOOD NEWS!!!!!! another fearless prediction
Simple Simon wrote: "Seahag" scribbled Seahag, glad that's over! I don't think you're out of the woods yet. I predict your area will be hit by a second, even stronger storm before the season is over. Glad you came through the first one OK. S.Simon - rarely wrong. Well, I'm not going to hold my breath! Seahag |
GOOD NEWS!!!!!! another fearless prediction
The fog around here can be so thick as to prevent one
from seeing the bow of a 40 foot boat. wrote in message ... On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 14:49:35 -0400, "Simple Simon" wrote: wrote in message ... This is the same "weather expert" who thinks that there is no such thing as fog so thick that you can't see the bow of your boat. If Simon says you are about to be hit by a hurricane, you can relax - you're as safe as safe can be. He's always off by 500 to 1000 miles. The thickest fog ever measured exists within your thick skull. X-rays failed to penetrate it. You know nothing about sea fog and you never will because you're too afraid to sail your flimsy Crap&Crap 27 anywhere but in very sheltered waters. Try sailing in the vicinity of Mt. Desert Island sometime. Better bring along someone who knows what they are doing. You'll be as helpless as a baby. BB |
GOOD NEWS!!!!!! another fearless prediction
I've seen similarly thick fog on the LIS, but not nearly so often!
You actually have to go sailing to see LIS fog, dumbass! There's plenty of fog in the mornings on the LIS. All you have to do is upgrade to a boat you can sleep on and you'll see some. Hoooh ahhh!!! RB |
Better harleys?
Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Doug Freyburger wrote: Bertie has spent year trolling many newsgroups attacking Asatru and this is one of his milder trolls. Having such a vulgar and delusional obessive enemy complements Asatru. Folks can learn much about your by who your enemies are, after all. Bertie needs medical help. To tell you the truth, I'm not terribly concerned with the rampblings of someone who thinks a comic book character is God. The Aesir hold a lot of concern for you to spend so many years honoring them with your vulgar opposition. You clearly think they are worth opposing. Seek medical help. |
Heavy Air
Here (and the UK I believe) it is the "lowest astromical tide". If you
think about it, that is the only sensible datum for a _sounding_! Cheers MC Jeff Morris wrote: If you were going to take the time to look it up, you could have at least said how it is defined. "Donal" wrote in message ... "Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message ... How old is that chart? All of my US charts from the recent past use MLLW as the datum for soundings. I even checked in my Chesapeake ChartKit to see if they were different. OK - Here's a quiz: What's the meaning of LLWLT? Lower Low Water Large Tide. Sounds similiar to LAT. Regards Donal -- |
Heavy Air
Right, but those are not entered on a chart are they?
Cheers MC Donal wrote: "Scott Vernon" wrote in message ... Yes, those of us with a functioning brain knew that. I believe that charted depths are given at MLW and it's up to the sailor to know the tide table and apply it. Maybe that's why that site gave it that way? Scotty Around here, heights are given above chart datum, which is traditionally the same as LAT. This can vary from one port to another. Today, at Low Water, Portsmouth will have 2m (6'6") above CD. http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/ViewArti...rticleID=55658 2 Also, we have MLWS, and MWLN but we don't have a plain MLW. Regards Donal -- |
Better harleys?
|
GOOD NEWS!!!!!! another fearless prediction
"Seahag" wrote in message ... Well, I'm not going to hold my breath! I wish you would. The halitosis is killing me. S.Simon |
Heavy Air
No - LAT is "Lowest Astronomical Tide" or the lowest tide that would be predicted. LLWLT,
or "Lower Low Water Large Tide" is the average of the lowest low water for each year in a 19 year cycle. Presumably, LAT would be the lowest of the lowest low water in the 19 year cycle, not the average. "The_navigator©" wrote in message ... Here (and the UK I believe) it is the "lowest astromical tide". If you think about it, that is the only sensible datum for a _sounding_! Cheers MC Jeff Morris wrote: If you were going to take the time to look it up, you could have at least said how it is defined. "Donal" wrote in message ... "Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message ... How old is that chart? All of my US charts from the recent past use MLLW as the datum for soundings. I even checked in my Chesapeake ChartKit to see if they were different. OK - Here's a quiz: What's the meaning of LLWLT? Lower Low Water Large Tide. Sounds similiar to LAT. Regards Donal -- |
Better harleys?
Actually the Aesir are the least of his concerns.
Wait until the Einheriar arrive. -Grimner- Doug Freyburger wrote: Bertie the Bunyip wrote: Doug Freyburger wrote: Bertie has spent year trolling many newsgroups attacking Asatru and this is one of his milder trolls. Having such a vulgar and delusional obessive enemy complements Asatru. Folks can learn much about your by who your enemies are, after all. Bertie needs medical help. To tell you the truth, I'm not terribly concerned with the rampblings of someone who thinks a comic book character is God. The Aesir hold a lot of concern for you to spend so many years honoring them with your vulgar opposition. You clearly think they are worth opposing. Seek medical help. |
GOOD NEWS!!!!!! another fearless prediction
That's a relief, after seeing how your last prediction panned out.
Scotty "Simple Simon" wrote I predict your area will be hit by a second, even stronger storm before the season is over. |
GOOD NEWS!!!!!! another fearless prediction
Hagitha,
So glad to see you've weathered the storm....is your cell phone working = yet? Send me the number.... --=20 katysails s/v Chanteuse Kirie Elite 32 http://katysails.tripod.com "Women and cats will do as they please, and men and dogs should relax and get used to the idea." - Robert A. Heinlein |
Heavy Air
"Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message ... No - LAT is "Lowest Astronomical Tide" or the lowest tide that would be predicted. LLWLT, or "Lower Low Water Large Tide" is the average of the lowest low water for each year in a 19 year cycle. Presumably, LAT would be the lowest of the lowest low water in the 19 year cycle, not the average. That would really depend on whether the lowest low had been predicted, wouldn't it? Anyway, LAT is much better than LLWLT. For one thing, you can remember the letters without having to look them up! Regards Donal -- |
Heavy Air
"Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message ... If you were going to take the time to look it up, you could have at least said how it is defined. Don't be churlish! You didn't say that we weren't allowed to use Google....Gimme the points! Regards Donal -- |
Heavy Air
"The_navigator©" wrote in message ... Right, but those are not entered on a chart are they? MHWS & HLWS? No, they are not mentioned on the chart. I've just checked one of my charts, and it explains that CD is "about" LAT - but, it doesn't say where??? I wonder if that means that there are multiple CD's for a chart that covers a 50 mile stretch of shoreline? On the back of the chart, they have printed all sorts of useful information, including definitions of MHWS, MHWN and MHW!!! I don't remember learning about MHW, and I cannot think of any practical use for the figure. Perhaps Bob can explain what use one could make of the MHW figure?? Regards Donal -- Cheers MC Donal wrote: "Scott Vernon" wrote in message ... Yes, those of us with a functioning brain knew that. I believe that charted depths are given at MLW and it's up to the sailor to know the tide table and apply it. Maybe that's why that site gave it that way? Scotty Around here, heights are given above chart datum, which is traditionally the same as LAT. This can vary from one port to another. Today, at Low Water, Portsmouth will have 2m (6'6") above CD. http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/ViewArti...rticleID=55658 2 Also, we have MLWS, and MWLN but we don't have a plain MLW. Regards Donal -- |
Heavy Air
Well, right under the sea serpent and above the mermaid it says '' 1927
DATUM , Soundings in Feet at MLW'' Low Low Water Low Tide????? SV "Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message ... How old is that chart? All of my US charts from the recent past use MLLW as the datum for soundings. I even checked in my Chesapeake ChartKit to see if they were different. OK - Here's a quiz: What's the meaning of LLWLT? BTW, I thought of commenting on the "8 feet above MLW" also - around here we have 10 foot tides and flooding is measured above MHW "Scott Vernon" wrote in message ... Found the 'old' chart. It reads '' controlling depths in feet at Mean Low Water (MLW)''. AND; depths reffered to soundings (MLW)''. Scotty "Scott Vernon" wrote in message ... Are you sure? Don't keep charts at the house, thus the ''I believe'' . SV "The_navigator©" wrote in message ... No they are not. Read the chart legend Cheers MC Scott Vernon wrote: I believe that charted depths are given at MLW and it's up to the sailor to know the tide table and apply it. |
GOOD NEWS!!!!!! another fearless prediction
"Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message ... The fog around here can be so thick as to prevent one from seeing the bow of a 40 foot boat. That is meaningless, unless we know how far you are from this 40 foot boat? Regards Donal -- |
Heavy Air
According to Chapman;
MLW: the avg. height of all low waters at a place over a 19-year cycle. MLLW: the avg. height of the lower low waters over a 19-year cycle. SV "Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message ... No - LAT is "Lowest Astronomical Tide" or the lowest tide that would be predicted. LLWLT, or "Lower Low Water Large Tide" is the average of the lowest low water for each year in a 19 year cycle. Presumably, LAT would be the lowest of the lowest low water in the 19 year cycle, not the average. "The_navigator©" wrote in message ... Here (and the UK I believe) it is the "lowest astromical tide". If you think about it, that is the only sensible datum for a _sounding_! Cheers MC Jeff Morris wrote: If you were going to take the time to look it up, you could have at least said how it is defined. "Donal" wrote in message ... "Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message ... How old is that chart? All of my US charts from the recent past use MLLW as the datum for soundings. I even checked in my Chesapeake ChartKit to see if they were different. OK - Here's a quiz: What's the meaning of LLWLT? Lower Low Water Large Tide. Sounds similiar to LAT. Regards Donal -- |
Heavy Air
Very Good.
Another quiz: What's the meaning of "Lower Low"? "Scott Vernon" wrote in message ... According to Chapman; MLW: the avg. height of all low waters at a place over a 19-year cycle. MLLW: the avg. height of the lower low waters over a 19-year cycle. SV "Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message ... No - LAT is "Lowest Astronomical Tide" or the lowest tide that would be predicted. LLWLT, or "Lower Low Water Large Tide" is the average of the lowest low water for each year in a 19 year cycle. Presumably, LAT would be the lowest of the lowest low water in the 19 year cycle, not the average. "The_navigator©" wrote in message ... Here (and the UK I believe) it is the "lowest astromical tide". If you think about it, that is the only sensible datum for a _sounding_! Cheers MC Jeff Morris wrote: If you were going to take the time to look it up, you could have at least said how it is defined. "Donal" wrote in message ... "Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message ... How old is that chart? All of my US charts from the recent past use MLLW as the datum for soundings. I even checked in my Chesapeake ChartKit to see if they were different. OK - Here's a quiz: What's the meaning of LLWLT? Lower Low Water Large Tide. Sounds similiar to LAT. Regards Donal -- |
Heavy Air
That would be when there are two low tides in a day, the lower one being
''Lower Low''. ??????? "Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message ... Very Good. Another quiz: What's the meaning of "Lower Low"? "Scott Vernon" wrote in message ... According to Chapman; MLW: the avg. height of all low waters at a place over a 19-year cycle. MLLW: the avg. height of the lower low waters over a 19-year cycle. SV "Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message ... No - LAT is "Lowest Astronomical Tide" or the lowest tide that would be predicted. LLWLT, or "Lower Low Water Large Tide" is the average of the lowest low water for each year in a 19 year cycle. Presumably, LAT would be the lowest of the lowest low water in the 19 year cycle, not the average. "The_navigator©" wrote in message ... Here (and the UK I believe) it is the "lowest astromical tide". If you think about it, that is the only sensible datum for a _sounding_! Cheers MC Jeff Morris wrote: If you were going to take the time to look it up, you could have at least said how it is defined. "Donal" wrote in message ... "Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message ... How old is that chart? All of my US charts from the recent past use MLLW as the datum for soundings. I even checked in my Chesapeake ChartKit to see if they were different. OK - Here's a quiz: What's the meaning of LLWLT? Lower Low Water Large Tide. Sounds similiar to LAT. Regards Donal -- |
Better harleys?
Douglas Berry wrote in
: On 22 Sep 2003 14:03:08 -0700, several witnesses claim to have seen (Doug Freyburger) scrawl a message on the wall: Bertie the Bunyip wrote: Doug Freyburger wrote: Bertie has spent year trolling many newsgroups attacking Asatru and this is one of his milder trolls. Having such a vulgar and delusional obessive enemy complements Asatru. Folks can learn much about your by who your enemies are, after all. Bertie needs medical help. To tell you the truth, I'm not terribly concerned with the rampblings of someone who thinks a comic book character is God. The Aesir hold a lot of concern for you to spend so many years honoring them with your vulgar opposition. You clearly think they are worth opposing. Seek medical help. huh? Who really cares what you do with your time? You want to worship the Old Gods, go right ahead. But don't be hurt when this crap gets cross-linked to alt.atheism, where we find all religious beliefs rather silly at best. And for your information, I wear a Tyr rune that was a gift from an asatru friend. She gave to me as I was about to start chemotherapy. Said it would help me focus my warrior side for the fight. I've worn it everyday since. Not because I believe in Tyr, but because I appreciated the gesture and what it meant. Oh admit it, you wore it because you thougth it looked cool. Just like these ****s do. Bertie |
Heavy Air
The LAT is the lowest predicted tide, not necessarily the lowest tide that ever occurred.
Its quite possible for weather conditions to create an even lower tide, but LAT, LLWLT, MLW, and MLLW all relate to astronomical predictions, not the actual observations. I wonder how frequently they adjust for the rising sea level? -jeff "Donal" wrote in message ... "Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message ... No - LAT is "Lowest Astronomical Tide" or the lowest tide that would be predicted. LLWLT, or "Lower Low Water Large Tide" is the average of the lowest low water for each year in a 19 year cycle. Presumably, LAT would be the lowest of the lowest low water in the 19 year cycle, not the average. That would really depend on whether the lowest low had been predicted, wouldn't it? Anyway, LAT is much better than LLWLT. For one thing, you can remember the letters without having to look them up! Regards Donal -- |
Heavy Air
MHW is very important on US charts. RB might hurt himself trying to figure out why -
should we give him a hint? As to your other question, yes the Chart Datum for Soundings is not absolute, it is relative to the local tide. Usually not a factor, but if you're looking at a chart of the Cape Cod Canal you have rather different tide domains at either end - a 10 foot range on the CC Bay side, about 3 feet in Buzzard's Bay - hence a rather severe current. -jeff "There is a tide in the affairs of men / Which, taken at the flood, leads on to fortune." - William Shakespeare "Donal" wrote in message ... "The_navigator©" wrote in message ... Right, but those are not entered on a chart are they? MHWS & HLWS? No, they are not mentioned on the chart. I've just checked one of my charts, and it explains that CD is "about" LAT - but, it doesn't say where??? I wonder if that means that there are multiple CD's for a chart that covers a 50 mile stretch of shoreline? On the back of the chart, they have printed all sorts of useful information, including definitions of MHWS, MHWN and MHW!!! I don't remember learning about MHW, and I cannot think of any practical use for the figure. Perhaps Bob can explain what use one could make of the MHW figure?? Regards Donal -- Cheers MC Donal wrote: "Scott Vernon" wrote in message ... Yes, those of us with a functioning brain knew that. I believe that charted depths are given at MLW and it's up to the sailor to know the tide table and apply it. Maybe that's why that site gave it that way? Scotty Around here, heights are given above chart datum, which is traditionally the same as LAT. This can vary from one port to another. Today, at Low Water, Portsmouth will have 2m (6'6") above CD. http://www.portsmouth.co.uk/ViewArti...rticleID=55658 2 Also, we have MLWS, and MWLN but we don't have a plain MLW. Regards Donal -- |
Heavy Air
Heights on land and clearances are above MWHS -right?
Cheers MC |
GOOD NEWS!!!!!! another fearless prediction
Well spotted.
Cheers MC Donal wrote: "Jonathan Ganz" wrote in message ... The fog around here can be so thick as to prevent one from seeing the bow of a 40 foot boat. That is meaningless, unless we know how far you are from this 40 foot boat? Regards Donal -- |
GOOD NEWS!!!!!! another fearless prediction
|
Heavy Air
1927 datum?
Good grief. Cheers MC Scott Vernon wrote: Well, right under the sea serpent and above the mermaid it says '' 1927 DATUM , Soundings in Feet at MLW'' Low Low Water Low Tide????? SV "Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message ... How old is that chart? All of my US charts from the recent past use MLLW as the datum for soundings. I even checked in my Chesapeake ChartKit to see if they were different. OK - Here's a quiz: What's the meaning of LLWLT? BTW, I thought of commenting on the "8 feet above MLW" also - around here we have 10 foot tides and flooding is measured above MHW "Scott Vernon" wrote in message ... Found the 'old' chart. It reads '' controlling depths in feet at Mean Low Water (MLW)''. AND; depths reffered to soundings (MLW)''. Scotty "Scott Vernon" wrote in message ... Are you sure? Don't keep charts at the house, thus the ''I believe'' . SV "The_navigator©" wrote in message ... No they are not. Read the chart legend Cheers MC Scott Vernon wrote: I believe that charted depths are given at MLW and it's up to the sailor to know the tide table and apply it. |
Heavy Air
We don't often use "spring tides" here in the States - people like RB would be saying they
only sail in Summer. We just use MHW - that leads to excitement since the bridges will likely be lower than their reported clearances once a day! That reminds me - Happy Spring! "The_navigator©" wrote in message ... Heights on land and clearances are above MWHS -right? Cheers MC |
Heavy Air
No, just MHW.
Scotty "The_navigator©" wrote in message ... Heights on land and clearances are above MWHS -right? Cheers MC |
Heavy Air
What, Charlie Brown? Did I not state it was my ''old'' chart?
Scotty "The_navigator©" wrote in message ... 1927 datum? Good grief. Cheers MC Scott Vernon wrote: Well, right under the sea serpent and above the mermaid it says '' 1927 DATUM , Soundings in Feet at MLW'' Low Low Water Low Tide????? SV "Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message ... How old is that chart? All of my US charts from the recent past use MLLW as the datum for soundings. I even checked in my Chesapeake ChartKit to see if they were different. OK - Here's a quiz: What's the meaning of LLWLT? BTW, I thought of commenting on the "8 feet above MLW" also - around here we have 10 foot tides and flooding is measured above MHW "Scott Vernon" wrote in message ... Found the 'old' chart. It reads '' controlling depths in feet at Mean Low Water (MLW)''. AND; depths reffered to soundings (MLW)''. Scotty "Scott Vernon" wrote in message ... Are you sure? Don't keep charts at the house, thus the ''I believe'' . SV "The_navigator©" wrote in message ... No they are not. Read the chart legend Cheers MC Scott Vernon wrote: I believe that charted depths are given at MLW and it's up to the sailor to know the tide table and apply it. |
Heavy Air
Hmmm. That's a worry. Might mean you'll need tide tables to decide if
you can pass an overhead... Cheers MC Jeff Morris wrote: We don't often use "spring tides" here in the States - people like RB would be saying they only sail in Summer. We just use MHW - that leads to excitement since the bridges will likely be lower than their reported clearances once a day! That reminds me - Happy Spring! "The_navigator©" wrote in message ... Heights on land and clearances are above MWHS -right? Cheers MC |
Heavy Air
But you're not that old are ya?
Cheers MC Scott Vernon wrote: What, Charlie Brown? Did I not state it was my ''old'' chart? Scotty "The_navigator©" wrote in message ... 1927 datum? Good grief. Cheers MC Scott Vernon wrote: Well, right under the sea serpent and above the mermaid it says '' 1927 DATUM , Soundings in Feet at MLW'' Low Low Water Low Tide????? SV "Jeff Morris" jeffmo@NoSpam-sv-lokiDOTcom wrote in message ... How old is that chart? All of my US charts from the recent past use MLLW as the datum for soundings. I even checked in my Chesapeake ChartKit to see if they were different. OK - Here's a quiz: What's the meaning of LLWLT? BTW, I thought of commenting on the "8 feet above MLW" also - around here we have 10 foot tides and flooding is measured above MHW "Scott Vernon" wrote in message ... Found the 'old' chart. It reads '' controlling depths in feet at Mean Low Water (MLW)''. AND; depths reffered to soundings (MLW)''. Scotty "Scott Vernon" wrote in message ... Are you sure? Don't keep charts at the house, thus the ''I believe'' . SV "The_navigator©" wrote in message ... No they are not. Read the chart legend Cheers MC Scott Vernon wrote: I believe that charted depths are given at MLW and it's up to the sailor to know the tide table and apply it. |
Better harleys?
Nik wrote in
: On Mon, 22 Sep 2003 22:49:08 GMT, Douglas Berry wrote: On 22 Sep 2003 14:03:08 -0700, several witnesses claim to have seen (Doug Freyburger) scrawl a message on the wall: Bertie the Bunyip wrote: Doug Freyburger wrote: Bertie has spent year trolling many newsgroups attacking Asatru and this is one of his milder trolls. Having such a vulgar and delusional obessive enemy complements Asatru. Folks can learn much about your by who your enemies are, after all. Bertie needs medical help. To tell you the truth, I'm not terribly concerned with the rampblings of someone who thinks a comic book character is God. The Aesir hold a lot of concern for you to spend so many years honoring them with your vulgar opposition. You clearly think they are worth opposing. Seek medical help. huh? Who really cares what you do with your time? You want to worship the Old Gods, go right ahead. But don't be hurt when this crap gets cross-linked to alt.atheism, where we find all religious beliefs rather silly at best. And for your information, I wear a Tyr rune that was a gift from an asatru friend. She gave to me as I was about to start chemotherapy. Said it would help me focus my warrior side for the fight. I've worn it everyday since. Not because I believe in Tyr, but because I appreciated the gesture and what it meant. Cool. I like that. There were atheists in Scandinavia back 1000+ years ago, a small minority, but they did exist and the educated ones would have used and known runes. I once was a 'Revisable Atheist' cast after Russell Bertrand but not for more than 10 ten years now... Bwawhahwhahwhahwhahwhahwhahwhhahwhahwahwhhahwhahwh ahwhahwhahhwhahwhahwhahwh ha! Bertie |
Heavy Air
Yes - In case anyone is following this, let me explain:
Here in the States we use Mean High Water (MHW) as the datum for bridge clearances. This means that, on average, half the tides will be higher than MHW, so the bridge will be lower than expected. To make matters worse, with the common semi-diurnal tide, one tide (the "higher high") will often be significantly higher than the other, so the discrepancy can be large. From chart 13270 of Boston harbor there is a table: Height referred to datum of soundings (MLLW) Mean Higher High Water 9.7 feet Mean High Water 9.3 feet Mean Low Water 0.3 feet Extreme Low Water -3.0 feet Thus, the average "higher high" is 0.4 feet above the datum used for bridge clearance. However, today the Higher High is at 10.22 feet. almost a foot higher than the datum. Anyone thinking they have a foot of clearance could be in for a nasty surprise! I should add that a strong onshore breeze can often add an extra foot to the predicted tides. -jeff "The_navigator©" wrote in message ... Hmmm. That's a worry. Might mean you'll need tide tables to decide if you can pass an overhead... Cheers MC Jeff Morris wrote: We don't often use "spring tides" here in the States - people like RB would be saying they only sail in Summer. We just use MHW - that leads to excitement since the bridges will likely be lower than their reported clearances once a day! That reminds me - Happy Spring! "The_navigator©" wrote in message ... Heights on land and clearances are above MWHS -right? Cheers MC |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:13 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com